Firearms And Shooting...

by Justice-One 159 Replies latest social physical

  • Justice-One
    Justice-One
    Two main reasons....one the Scientology controversy, (can I say that without getting sued by the Scientologists?) and two, Frontsight is being sued by its members at this time. I personally think Frontsight is gettting ready to implode.

    WOW.

    I've just heard about FS from people who've trained there in the past. I didn't know any of this! Of course, since I'm not in the position to be looking at training centers of that caliber (and cost) I haven't looked that hard.

    I have more that I could tell you about the above, but you should probably look into for yourself. All I know is that Frontsight seems to use the same tactics as the above referenced church group, and they will sue at the drop of a hat.

  • Justice-One
    Justice-One

    Does anyone here have an M1 Carbine?

  • Forscher
    Forscher

    sorry to take so long to get back, its been a tough week!

    Ohh yeah....you and I would get along just fine. I used to have a model 700 heavy barrel "tactical" rifle, and I used to do the one hole groups at 200 meters thing. Then I got into battle rifles, and shooting at man sized steel at ranges out to 700 meters. I also love to shoot my .44 Blackhawk at rifle ranges. On a dry dusty day, I have been known to "walk them up" on targets more than 500 meters away.


    I read you loud and clear Justice! I saw you mentioned some experience with the Barrett 50 cal. I've been wanting to get my hands on one of those! The current world distance record for sniping of 2400 yards is held by an SAS sniper who was using one of those things.

    If guns cause crime, then spoons made Rossie O'Donel fat.


    I agree with you there pard!

    The founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment to garauntee the right of a citizen to posess any weapon he wanted, including military. For many years here in the U.S. people did just that. Merchants often owned ships equipped with the latest of military weaponry with no peep from the government. In fact, they often took those ships into battle with the government's approval. Weaponry only became an issue in the 1920s and 1930s. That was the time of outlaws like Dilinger, who equipped themselves with submachine guns. Our government at all levels was too cheap to equip their folks with equivalent or superior weaponry and decided the best way to deal with the problem was to criminalise their possesion.
    Even then, they couldn't openly restrict military weapons to begin with because the "milita" clause makes it obvious to anyone but a moron that military weaponry was included in the right "to keep and bear arms". Does anyone realise that the only Supreme court decision to directly decide on the second amendment actually garaunties me the right to own a machine gun without government interference? Here it is, read it for yourself.

    rom the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

    Case: UNITED STATES V. MILLER

    Case #: 307US174


    NO. 696. ARGUED MARCH 30, 1939. - DECIDED MAY 15, 1939. - 26 F.SUPP.
    1002, REVERSED.


    THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT, AS APPLIED TO ONE INDICTED FOR TRANSPORTING
    IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE A 12-GAUGE SHOTGUN WITH A BARREL LESS THAN 18
    INCHES LONG, WITHOUT HAVING REGISTERED IT AND WITHOUT HAVING IN HIS
    POSSESSION A STAMP-AFFIXED WRITTEN ORDER FOR IT, AS REQUIRED BY THE
    ACT, HELD:

    1. NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS AN INVASION OF THE RESERVED POWERS OF THE
    STATES. CITING SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 506, AND NARCOTIC
    ACT CASES. P. 177.

    2. NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL
    CONSTITUTION. P. 178.

    THE COURT CAN NOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT A SHOTGUN HAVING A BARREL
    LESS THAN 18 INCHES LONG HAS TODAY ANY REASONABLE RELATION TO THE
    PRESERVATION OR EFFICIENCY OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA; AND THEREFORE
    CAN NOT SAY THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES TO THE CITIZEN THE
    RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR SUCH A WEAPON.

    UNITED STATES V. MILLER ET AL.

    APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
    DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.

    APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A
    DEMURRER TO AN INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.

    MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

    AN INDICTMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS,
    CHARGED THAT JACK MILLER AND FRANK LAYTON

    "DID UNLAWFULLY, KNOWINGLY, WILFULLY, AND FELONIOUSLY TRANSPORT IN
    INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM THE TOWN OF CLAREMORE IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
    TO THE TOWN OF SILOAM SPRINGS IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS A CERTAIN
    FIREARM, TO-WIT, A DOUBLE BARREL 12-GAUGE STEVENS SHOTGUN HAVING A
    BARREL LESS THAN 18 INCHES IN LENGTH, BEARING IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
    76230, SAID DEFENDANTS, AT THE TIME OF SO TRANSPORTING SAID FIREARM IN
    INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS AFORESAID, NOT HAVING REGISTERED SAID FIREARM AS
    REQUIRED BY SECTION 1132D OF TITLE 26, U.S.C. (ACT OF JUNE 26, 1934, C.
    737, SEC. 4(SEC. 5), 48 STAT. 1237), AND NOT HAVING IN THEIR
    POSSESSION A STAMP-AFFIXED WRITTEN ORDER FOR SAID FIREARM AS PROVIDED
    BY SECTION 1132C, TITLE 26, U.S.C. (JUNE 26, 1934, C. 737, SEC. 4, 48
    STAT. 1237) AND THE REGULATIONS ISSUED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE SAID ACT
    OF CONGRESS KNOWN AS THE 'NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT' APPROVED JUNE 26,
    1934, CONTRARY TO THE FORM OF THE STATUTE IN SUCH CASE MADE AND
    PROVIDED, AND AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE UNITED STATES."
    FN1

    A DULY INTERPOSED DEMURRER ALLEGED: THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT IS NOT
    A REVENUE MEASURE BUT AN ATTEMPT TO USURP POLICE POWER RESERVED TO THE
    STATES, AND IS THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ALSO, IT OFFENDS THE
    INHIBITION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION - "A WELL
    REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE
    RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

    THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT SECTION ELEVEN OF THE ACT VIOLATES THE
    SECOND AMENDMENT. IT ACCORDINGLY SUSTAINED THE DEMURRER AND QUASHED
    THE INDICTMENT.

    THE CAUSE IS HERE BY DIRECT APPEAL.

    CONSIDERING SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES (1937), 300 U.S. 506, 513, AND
    WHAT WAS RULED IN SUNDRY CAUSES ARISING UNDER THE HARRISON NARCOTIC
    ACT FN2 - UNITED STATES V. JIN FUEY MOY (1916), 241 U.S. 394; UNITED
    STATES V. DOREMUS (1919), 249 U.S. 86, 94; LINDER V. UNITED STATES
    (1925), 268 U.S. 5; ALSTON V. UNITED STATES (1927), 274 U.S. 289; NIGRO
    V. UNITED STATES (1928), 276 U.S. 332 - THE OBJECTION THAT THE ACT
    USURPS POLICE POWER RESERVED TO THE STATES IS PLAINLY UNTENABLE.

    IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THAT POSSESSION OR USE
    OF A "SHOTGUN HAVING A BARREL OF LESS THAN EIGHTEEN INCHES IN LENGTH"
    AT THIS TIME HAS SOME REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRESERVATION OR
    EFFICIENCY OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE SECOND
    AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR SUCH AN INSTRUMENT.
    CERTAINLY IT IS NOT WITHIN JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THIS WEAPON IS ANY PART
    OF THE ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENT OR THAT ITS USE COULD CONTRIBUTE TO
    THE COMMON DEFENSE.
    AYMETTE V. STATE, 2 HUMPHREYS (TENN.) 154, 158.

    THE CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED GRANTED TO THE CONGRESS POWER
    "TO PROVIDE FOR CALLING FORTH THE MILITIA TO EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE
    UNION, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS AND REPEL INVASIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR
    ORGANIZING, ARMING, AND DISCIPLINING, THE MILITIA, AND FOR GOVERNING
    SUCH PART OF THEM AS MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED
    STATES, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, THE APPOINTMENT OF THE
    OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE
    DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS." WITH OBVIOUS PURPOSE TO ASSURE THE
    CONTINUATION AND RENDER POSSIBLE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUCH FORCES THE
    DECLARATION AND GUARANTEE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WERE MADE. IT MUST
    BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED WITH THAT END IN VIEW.

    THE MILITIA WHICH THE STATES WERE EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN AND TRAIN IS
    SET IN CONTRAST WITH TROOPS WHICH THEY WERE FORBIDDEN TO KEEP WITHOUT
    THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS. THE SENTIMENT OF THE TIME STRONGLY DISFAVORED
    STANDING ARMIES; THE COMMON VIEW WAS THAT ADEQUATE DEFENSE OF COUNTRY
    AND LAWS COULD BE SECURED THROUGH THE MILITIA - CIVILIANS PRIMARILY,
    SOLDIERS ON OCCASION.

    THE SIGNIFICATION ATTRIBUTED TO THE TERM MILITIA APPEARS FROM THE
    DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION, THE HISTORY AND LEGISLATION OF COLONIES AND
    STATES, AND THE WRITINGS OF APPROVED COMMENTATORS. THESE SHOW PLAINLY
    ENOUGH THAT THE MILITIA COMPRISED ALL MALES PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF
    ACTING IN CONCERT FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE. "A BODY OF CITIZENS ENROLLED
    FOR MILITARY DISCIPLINE." AND FURTHER, THAT ORDINARILY WHEN CALLED FOR
    SERVICE THESE MEN WERE EXPECTED TO APPEAR BEARING ARMS SUPPLIED BY
    THEMSELVES AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME.

    BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES, VOL. 2, CH. 13, P. 409 POINTS OUT "THAT
    KING ALFRED FIRST SETTLED A NATIONAL MILITIA IN THIS KINGDOM," AND
    TRACES THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF SUCH FORCES.

    ADAM SMITH'S WEALTH OF NATIONS, BOOK V, CH. 1, CONTAINS AN EXTENDED
    ACCOUNT OF THE MILITIA. IT IS THERE SAID: "MEN OF REPUBLICAN
    PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN JEALOUS OF A STANDING ARMY AS DANGEROUS TO
    LIBERTY." "IN A MILITIA, THE CHARACTER OF THE LABOURER, ARTIFICER, OR
    TRADESMAN, PREDOMINATES OVER THAT OF THE SOLDIER: IN A STANDING ARMY,
    THAT OF THE SOLDIER PREDOMINATES OVER EVERY OTHER CHARACTER; AND IN
    THIS DISTINCTION SEEMS TO CONSIST THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
    THOSE TWO DIFFERENT SPECIES OF MILITARY FORCE."

    "THE AMERICAN COLONIES IN THE 17TH CENTURY," OSGOOD, VOL. 1, CH.
    XIII, AFFIRMS IN REFERENCE TO THE EARLY SYSTEM OF DEFENSE IN NEW
    ENGLAND -

    "IN ALL THE COLONIES, AS IN ENGLAND, THE MILITIA SYSTEM WAS BASED ON
    THE PRINCIPLE OF THE ASSIZE OF ARMS. THIS IMPLIED THE GENERAL
    OBLIGATION OF ALL ADULT MALE INHABITANTS TO POSSESS ARMS, AND, WITH
    CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, TO COOPERATE IN THE WORK OF DEFENCE." "THE
    POSSESSION OF ARMS ALSO IMPLIED THE POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION, AND THE
    AUTHORITIES PAID QUITE AS MUCH ATTENTION TO THE LATTER AS TO THE
    FORMER." "A YEAR LATER (1632) IT WAS ORDERED THAT ANY SINGLE MAN WHO
    HAD NOT FURNISHED HIMSELF WITH ARMS MIGHT BE PUT OUT TO SERVICE, AND
    THIS BECAME A PERMANENT PART OF THE LEGISLATION OF THE COLONY
    (MASSACHUSETTS)."

    ALSO "CLAUSES INTENDED TO INSURE THE POSSESSION OF ARMS AND
    AMMUNITION BY ALL WHO WERE SUBJECT TO MILITARY SERVICE APPEAR IN ALL
    THE IMPORTANT ENACTMENTS CONCERNING MILITARY AFFAIRS. FINES WERE THE
    PENALTY FOR DELINQUENCY, WHETHER OF TOWNS OR INDIVIDUALS. ACCORDING TO
    THE USAGE OF THE TIMES, THE INFANTRY OF MASSACHUSETTS CONSISTED OF
    PIKEMEN AND MUSKETEERS. THE LAW, AS ENACTED IN 1649 AND THEREAFTER,
    PROVIDED THAT EACH OF THE FORMER SHOULD BE ARMED WITH A PIKE, CORSELET,
    HEAD-PIECE, SWORD, AND KNAPSACK. THE MUSKETEER SHOULD CARRY A 'GOOD
    FIXED MUSKET,' NOT UNDER BASTARD MUSKET BORE, NOT LESS THAN THREE FEET,
    NINE INCHES, NOR MORE THAN FOUR FEET THREE INCHES IN LENGTH, A PRIMING
    WIRE, SCOURER, AND MOULD, A SWORD, REST, BANDOLEERS, ONE POUND OF
    POWDER, TWENTY BULLETS, AND TWO FATHOMS OF MATCH. THE LAW ALSO
    REQUIRED THAT TWO-THIRDS OF EACH COMPANY SHOULD BE MUSKETEERS."

    THE GENERAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, JANUARY SESSION 1784, PROVIDED
    FOR THE ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE MILITIA. IT DIRECTED THAT
    THE TRAIN BAND SHOULD "CONTAIN ALL ABLE BODIED MEN, FROM SIXTEEN TO
    FORTY YEARS OF AGE, AND THE ALARM LIST, ALL OTHER MEN UNDER SIXTY YEARS
    OF AGE, .." AALSO, "THAT EVERY NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER AND PRIVATE
    SOLDIER OF THE SAID MILITIA NOT UNDER THE CONTROUL OF PARENTS, MASTERS
    OR GUARDIANS, AND BEING OF SUFFICIENT ABILITY THEREFOR IN THE JUDGMENT
    OF THE SELECTMEN OF THE TOWN IN WHICH HE SHALL DWELL, SHALL EQUIP
    HIMSELF, AND BE CONSTANTLY PROVIDED WITH A GOOD FIRE ARM," &C.

    BY AN ACT PASSED APRIL 4, 1786 THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE DIRECTED:
    "THAT EVERY ABLE-BODIED MALE PERSON, BEING A CITIZEN OF THIS STATE, OR
    OF ANY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND RESIDING IN THIS STATE, (EXCEPT SUCH
    PERSONS AS ARE HEREINAFTER EXCEPTED) AND WHO ARE OF THE AGE OF SIXTEEN,
    AND UNDER THE AGE OF FORTY-FIVE YEARS, SHALL, BY THE CAPTAIN OR
    COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE BEAT IN WHICH SUCH CITIZENS SHALL RESIDE,
    WITHIN FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE PASSING OF THIS ACT, BE ENROLLED IN THE
    COMPANY OF SUCH BEAT. .. THHAT EVERY CITIZEN SO ENROLLED AND
    NOTIFIED, SHALL, WITHIN THREE MONTHS THEREAFTER, PROVIDE HIMSELF, AT
    HIS OWN EXPENSE, WITH A GOOD MUSKET OR FIRELOCK, A SUFFICIENT BAYONET
    AND BELT, A POUCH WITH A BOX THEREIN TO CONTAIN NOT LESS THAN TWENTY
    FOUR CARTRIDGES SUITED TO THE BORE OF HIS MUSKET OR FIRELOCK, EACH
    CARTRIDGE CONTAINING A PROPER QUANTITY OF POWDER AND BALL, TWO SPARE
    FLINTS, A BLANKET AND KNAPSACK; .."


    THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA, OCTOBER, 1785, (12 HENING'S
    STATUTES) DECLARED, "THE DEFENSE AND SAFETY OF THE COMMONWEALTH DEPEND
    UPON HAVING ITS CITIZENS PROPERLY ARMED AND TAUGHT THE KNOWLEDGE OF
    MILITARY DUTY."

    IT FURTHER PROVIDED FOR ORGANIZATION AND CONTROL OF THE MILITIA AND
    DIRECTED THAT "ALL FREE MALE PERSONS BETWEEN THE AGES OF EIGHTEEN AND
    FIFTY YEARS," WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, "SHALL BE INROLLED OR FORMED
    INTO COMPANIES." "THERE SHALL BE A PRIVATE MUSTER OF EVERY COMPANY
    ONCE IN TWO MONTHS."

    ALSO THAT "EVERY OFFICER AND SOLDIER SHALL APPEAR AT HIS RESPECTIVE
    MUSTER-FIELD ON THE DAY APPOINTED, BY ELEVEN O'CLOCK IN THE FORENOON,
    ARMED, EQUIPPED, AND ACCOUTRED, AS FOLLOWS: .. EVEERY NON-COMMISSIONED
    OFFICER AND PRIVATE WITH A GOOD, CLEAN MUSKET CARRYING AN OUNCE BALL,
    AND THREE FEET EIGHT INCHES LONG IN THE BARREL, WITH A GOOD BAYONET AND
    IRON RAMROD WELL FITTED THERETO, A CARTRIDGE BOX PROPERLY MADE, TO
    CONTAIN AND SECURE TWENTY CARTRIDGES FITTED TO HIS MUSKET, A GOOD
    KNAPSACK AND CANTEEN, AND MOREOVER, EACH NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER AND
    PRIVATE SHALL HAVE AT EVERY MUSTER ONE POUND OF GOOD POWDER, AND FOUR
    POUNDS OF LEAD, INCLUDING TWENTY BLIND CARTRIDGES; AND EACH SERJEANT
    SHALL HAVE A PAIR OF MOULDS FIT TO CAST BALLS FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE
    COMPANIES, TO BE PURCHASED BY THE COMMANDING OFFICER OUT OF THE MONIES
    ARISING ON DELINQUENCIES. PROVIDED, THAT THE MILITIA OF THE COUNTIES
    WESTWARD OF THE BLUE RIDGE, AND THE COUNTIES BELOW ADJOINING THERETO,
    SHALL NOT BE OBLIGED TO BE ARMED WITH MUSKETS, BUT MAY HAVE GOOD RIFLES
    WITH PROPER ACCOUTREMENTS, IN LIEU THEREOF. AND EVERY OF THE SAID
    OFFICERS, NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, AND PRIVATES, SHALL CONSTANTLY
    KEEP THE AFORESAID ARMS, ACCOUTREMENTS, AND AMMUNITION, READY TO BE
    PRODUCED WHENEVER CALLED FOR BY HIS COMMANDING OFFICER. IF ANY PRIVATE
    SHALL MAKE IT APPEAR TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT HEREAFTER TO BE
    APPOINTED FOR TRYING DELINQUENCIES UNDER THIS ACT THAT HE IS SO POOR
    THAT HE CANNOT PURCHASE THE ARMS HEREIN REQUIRED, SUCH COURT SHALL
    CAUSE THEM TO BE PURCHASED OUT OF THE MONEY ARISING FROM DELINQUENTS."

    MOST IF NOT ALL OF THE STATES HAVE ADOPTED PROVISIONS TOUCHING THE
    RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. DIFFERENCES IN THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN
    THESE HAVE NATURALLY LED TO SOMEWHAT VARIANT CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE
    SCOPE OF THE RIGHT GUARANTEED. BUT NONE OF THEM SEEM TO AFFORD ANY
    MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR THE CHALLENGED RULING OF THE COURT BELOW.

    IN THE MARGIN SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT OPINIONS AND COMMENTS BY
    WRITERS ARE CITED. FN3

    WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT BELOW AND THE
    CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED. THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED FOR
    FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

    FN1 ACT OF JUNE 26, 1934, C. 757, 48 STAT. 1236-1240, 26 U.S.C. SEC.
    1132.

    THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT -

    "(A) THE TERM 'FIREARM' MEANS A SHOTGUN OR RIFLE HAVING A BARREL OF
    LESS THAN EIGHTEEN INCHES IN LENGTH, OR ANY OTHER WEAPON, EXCEPT A
    PISTOL OR REVOLVER, FROM WHICH A SHOT IS DISCHARGED BY AN EXPLOSIVE IF
    SUCH WEAPON IS CAPABLE OF BEING CONCEALED ON THE PERSON, OR A MACHINE
    GUN, AND INCLUDES A MUFFLER OR SILENCER FOR ANY FIREARM WHETHER OR NOT
    SUCH FIREARM IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOREGOING DEFINITION, (THE ACT OF
    APRIL 10, 1936, C. 169, 49 STAT. 1192 ADDED THE WORDS) BUT DOES NOT
    INCLUDE ANY RIFLE WHICH IS WITHIN THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS SOLELY BY
    REASON OF THE LENGTH OF ITS BARREL IF THE CALIBER OF SUCH RIFLE IS .22
    OR SMALLER AND IF ITS BARREL IS SIXTEEN INCHES OR MORE IN LENGTH.

    "SEC. 3. (A) THERE SHALL BE LEVIED, COLLECTED, AND PAID UPON
    FIREARMS TRANSFERRED IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES A TAX AT THE RATE
    OF $200 FOR EACH FIREARM, SUCH TAX TO BE PAID BY THE TRANSFEROR, AND TO
    BE REPRESENTED BY APPROPRIATE STAMPS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE
    COMMISSIONER, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY; AND THE STAMPS HEREIN
    PROVIDED SHALL BE AFFIXED TO THE ORDER FOR SUCH FIREARM, HEREINAFTER
    PROVIDED FOR. THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS SECTION SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO
    ANY IMPORT DUTY IMPOSED ON SUCH FIREARM.

    "SEC. 4. (A) IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO TRANSFER A
    FIREARM EXCEPT IN PURSUANCE OF A WRITTEN ORDER FROM THE PERSON SEEKING
    TO OBTAIN SUCH ARTICLE, ON AN APPLICATION FORM ISSUED IN BLANK IN
    DUPLICATE FOR THAT PURPOSE BY THE COMMISSIONER. SUCH ORDER SHALL
    IDENTIFY THE APPLICANT BY SUCH MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION AS MAY BE
    PRESCRIBED BY REGULATIONS UNDER THIS ACT: PROVIDED, THAT, IF THE
    APPLICANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL, SUCH IDENTIFICATION SHALL INCLUDE
    FINGERPRINTS AND A PHOTOGRAPH THEREOF. "(C) EVERY PERSON SO
    TRANSFERRING A FIREARM SHALL SET FORTH IN EACH COPY OF SUCH ORDER THE
    MANUFACTURER'S NUMBER OR OTHER MARK IDENTIFYING SUCH FIREARM, AND SHALL
    FORWARD A COPY OF SUCH ORDER TO THE COMMISSIONER. THE ORIGINAL THEREOF
    WITH STAMPS AFFIXED, SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE APPLICANT.

    "(D) NO PERSON SHALL TRANSFER A FIREARM WHICH HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN
    TRANSFERRED ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT, UNLESS SUCH
    PERSON, IN ADDITION TO COMPLYING WITH SUBSECTION (C), TRANSFERS
    THEREWITH THE STAMP-AFFIXED ORDER PROVIDED FOR IN THIS SECTION FOR EACH
    SUCH PRIOR TRANSFER, IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH REGULATIONS AS MAY BE
    PRESCRIBED UNDER THIS ACT FOR PROOF OF PAYMENT OF ALL TAXES ON SUCH
    FIREARMS.

    "SEC. 5. (A) WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT
    EVERY PERSON POSSESSING A FIREARM SHALL REGISTER, WITH THE COLLECTOR OF
    THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HE RESIDES, THE NUMBER OR OTHER MARK IDENTIFYING
    SUCH FIREARM, TOGETHER WITH HIS NAME, ADDRESS, PLACE WHERE SUCH FIREARM
    IS USUALLY KEPT, AND PLACE OF BUSINESS OR EMPLOYMENT, AND, IF SUCH
    PERSON IS OTHER THAN A NATURAL PERSON, THE NAME AND HOME ADDRESS OF AN
    EXECUTIVE OFFICER THEREOF: PROVIDED, THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE REQUIRED
    TO REGISTER UNDER THIS SECTION WITH RESPECT TO ANY FIREARM ACQUIRED
    AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF, AND IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF,
    THIS ACT.

    "SEC. 6. IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE OR POSSESS
    ANY FIREARM WHICH HAS AT ANY TIME BEEN TRANSFERRED IN VIOLATION OF

    "SEC. 11. IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO
    REGISTER AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 5 HEREOF AND WHO SHALL NOT HAVE SO
    REGISTERED, OR ANY OTHER PERSON WHO HAS NOT IN HIS POSSESSION A
    STAMPAFFIXED ORDER AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 4 HEREOF, TO SHIP, CARRY, OR
    DELIVER ANY FIREARM IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

    "SEC. 12. THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY,
    SHALL PRESCRIBE SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR
    CARRYING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT INTO EFFECT.

    "SEC. 14. ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES OR FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE
    REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ACT SHALL, UPON CONVICTION, BE FINED NOT MORE THAN
    $2,000 OR BE IMPRISONED FOR NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH, IN THE
    DISCRETION OF THE COURT.

    "SEC. 16. IF ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT, OR THE APPLICATION THEREOF
    TO ANY PERSON OR CIRCUMSTANCE, IS HELD INVALID, THE REMAINDER OF THE
    ACT, AND THE APPLICATION OF SUCH PROVISION TO OTHER PERSONS OR
    CIRCUMSTANCES, SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED THEREBY.

    "SEC. 18. THIS ACT MAY BE CITED AS THE 'NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.'"

    FN2 ACT DECEMBER 17, 1914, C. 1, 38 STAT. 785; FEBRUARY 24, 1919, C.
    18, 40 STAT. 1057.

    FN3 CONCERNING THE MILITIA - PRESSER V. ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252;
    ROBERTSON V. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275; FIFE V. STATE, 31 ARK. 455; JEFFERS
    V. FAIR, 33 GA. 347; SALINA V. BLAKSLEY, 72 KAN. 230; 83 P. 619; PEOPLE
    V. BROWN, 253 MICH. 537; 235 N.W. 245; AYMETTE V. STATE, 2 HUMPHR.
    (TENN.) 154; STATE V. DUKE, 42 TEXAS 455; STATE V. WORKMAN, 35 W. VA.
    367; 14 S.E. 9; COOLEY'S CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, VOL. 1, P. 729;
    STORY ON THE CONSTITUTION, 5TH ED., VOL. 2, P. 646; ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF
    THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, VOL. X, P. 471, 474.

    MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
    THIS CAUSE.


    Did anybody notice the part I put in bold? That gave the entire reason for upholding the act. The second amendment was written to provide for a well equipped militia, since militiamen were required to provide their own equipment out of their own pockets, the right to own military weapons is garaunteed. The Ban on Submachineguns and sawed-off shotguns was upheld on the grounds that they had no possible military use!
    Since then, the "militia" arguement has been twisted around to mean that "Miller" upholds a ban on all weapons of a military nature. And I often see "Miller" mischaracterised in the media as well as justifying a ban on "assualt weapons" as well. It doesn't.
    Since then, the supreme court has decided other cases which have had an effect of supressing the right to be armed. they've never revisted "Miller" and the 2nd amendment in any of those cases. Instead, the law is currently upheld on the basis of the "commerce" clause, in effect giving that clause primacy in the issue. That is rather cheeky on their part given that the amendment amends the Constitution and naturally supercedes the commerce clause.
    There are two recent Federal circuits with decisions at the opposite ends of the debate. So far the Court hasn't weighed in on the debate for the simple reason that they don't want to have to rule directly on the second amendment. In theory, it is possible for a person in one of those circuits to own a fully automatic weapon free from worry about prosecution.
    For those who say that guns are not used in any significant numbers to protect families here in the U.S., Professor Gary Kleck Ph.D. at FSU did a little research on that about ten years back. He concluded that Guns are used around 2,000,000 times a year by people in private homes to thwart crimes within their homes. Although he has been pooh-awed about his conlusions, no serious researcher has been able to refute his conlusions. And many have tried. I know a friend of his. Gary kleck was no friend of the right to own weapons before he did his research. However, his research change his mind on certain aspects of the debate because of what he found out. Dr. Kleck is a commited liberal. However, he had the guts to publish what his research revealed despite the fact that he knew many of his fellow liberals would turn on him. And boy did they ever! My hat's off to him for his personal courage.
    For our good friends in England I leave a thought. Have you folks noticed that since your government clamped down on the private ownership of weapons your death shooting homicide and crimes committed with firearms rates have gone up not down? That is our experience over on our side of the pond in those jurisdictions which prohibit the private ownership of guns as well, and that include Canada as well. In view of that, many of us here consider it insane to supress gun ownership. i am not being judgemental here, just leaving a thought to ponder.
    Respectfully,
    Forscher

  • Dan-O
    Dan-O

    "My spouse and I have a weapons safe in our house, to keep guns out of small hands. "

    Small hands need to be taught to respect and top properly handle firearms. One step at a time.

  • Dan-O
    Dan-O

    "But I ask you this: if a perp breaks into your house and steals your gun and kills someone with it, what should your level of responsibility be?"

    Probably about the same as if someone lawfully buys a gallon of gasoline and a pack of matches and uses them to commit arson, or steals a car & drives through a crowd, killing several people, or ...

    In other words, zero.

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou
    Small hands need to be taught to respect and to properly handle firearms. One step at a time.

    Dan-O can you explain this? I've already drawn criticism in this thread but I'm going to stick my neck out again and say that America has got it wrong on guns. I think you're back to front on the whole issue.

    Respectfully,

    Nic'

  • Justice-One
    Justice-One

    In a society where firearms are as common as the kitchen sink, it is only proper and prudent to teach kids about them. My children were taught from an early age to respect these tools, and to understand the powers involved. They were also taught to always remember my number one rule..."all firearms are to be treated as if they are loaded....even if you are SURE they aren't."

    I remember one time, years ago, the "SWAT team" came to my son's school for the "DARE" graduation. They were letting the kids handle the of course unloaded handguns. My son was the only one to take the wep, drop the mag, and pull the slide back to unsure that it was not loaded...and then pointed it at the ground. The cop turned to me and said...."I'm impressed, the training shows. Your son would have been the only one here that would not have endangered anyone had the gun been loaded."

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    Tom Carver is the BBC's Washington correspondent and has written on American gun culture. The following are his views but I post them because, unlike myself, he writes from a position of knowledge and experience (as do others here).

    Analysis: America's gun culture

    The pro-gun lobby is fond of saying it is not guns but people who kill. In some cases that is certainly true. Some people would kill whether they had a knife, a gun or bare hands. But in many other cases, access to a firearm is what triggers the murder.

    This might seem self-evident to a European audience but there is debate on this side of the Atlantic - a debate not about how to remove guns from society but whether or not guns are even to blame.

    The right to own a firearm is embedded in the American psyche like a splinter of flint, jagged and immovable.

    It all goes back to the Founding Fathers who in 1791 amended the new American constitution with the following words: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    This amendment was drawn up by people living in an precarious agrarian society unrecognisable to modern Americans, when communities needed guns to hunt and to protect themselves from Indians and highwaymen.

    The gun lobby has plucked out the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and used it ever since to beat down every serious attempt at gun control in America by claiming a violation of the constitution.

    Ludicrous claims

    I have heard a representative from the Gun Owners of America claiming that if children grow up with guns in the house they get used to them and know how to handle them. He said that in the old days children used to carry guns to school on the New York subway to take part in shooting competitions.

    Such is the power of the gun lobby, and most notably the National Rifle Association, that even the mildest gun legislation, a requirement that all new guns should be fitted with gun locks, got bogged down in Congress.

    When a six-year-old boy shot dead a girl of the same age in front of their classmates, President Clinton said that had this legislation been approved the boy would not have been able to kill.

    But that is just as ludicrous as the gun lobby's arguments.

    How to solve the problem?

    The gun the little boy used had been stolen and criminals do not tend to be too interested in keeping the locks on their guns. Therein lies the biggest problem - how to remove the vast number of guns that are already in circulation in America. None of the present gun law proposals tackle that - instead they deal with the acquisition of new guns.

    The Democrats would like everyone who has a gun to have a licence. They would like to step up the background checks on gun buyers, but they are not proposing outlawing sawn-off shotguns, semi-automatics, concealed weapons or anything else. And if even they did, how would the police go about rounding up the arsenals of weapons in American homes?

    All suggestions gratefully received.

  • Justice-One
    Justice-One
    This amendment was drawn up by people living in an precarious agrarian society unrecognisable to modern Americans, when communities needed guns to hunt and to protect themselves from Indians and highwaymen.

    The Second Amendment made sure Americans had the RIGHT to be armed. There is no if's and's or but's about this. Even a small amount of reseach will show anyone where the founding fathers stood on this. Anyone that tries to say the "right to keep and bear arms" does not mean what it says is either being disingenuous, or extremly under educated.

    Therein lies the biggest problem - how to remove the vast number of guns that are already in circulation in America.

    Many including me, do not believe "vast numbers of guns" are a problem. A lot of credence has been given to the phrase..."more guns less crime."

    The Democrats would like everyone who has a gun to have a licence. They would like to step up the background checks on gun buyers, but they are not proposing outlawing sawn-off shotguns, semi-automatics, concealed weapons or anything else.

    And most Democrats it would seem have not bothered to read the Constitution, or inform themselves on this important subject. "Sawn-off shotguns" have been heavily regulated since 1934. As for semi's and concealed weps, you couldn't throw a stone and not hit a Dem that did not want to ban them. Give me a BREAK!!! And lets face it, most Democrats would like me to have a license for my morning sit down.

    And if even they did, how would the police go about rounding up the arsenals of weapons in American homes?
    But it really boils down to this dosen't? I bet they would find out REAL quick why the Nazi's quit sending soilders into the Warsaw Ghetto.
  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    Just because the constitution allows something does not make that thing desirable.

    We are not living in 1787.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit